ICE Raids

[Mynnion]

I am wondering what everyone's view is on the recent ICE raids in Mississippi.  It appears obvious that the processing plants could not be unaware that nearly 700 of their workers were in the country without documentation.

We can discuss the problem of individuals working in this country illegally but I think that has been covered in detail.  What I am interested in knowing is why no one is being held responsible for hiring them to begin with?  Even on the rare occasions where a company is fined the amount comes no where near matching the gains the company makes.

This pattern seems to be true in nearly all industries.

Personally if we are going to call illegal immigrants criminals than the same should apply to those who hire them rather than condone the behavior by turning a blind eye to it.

Thoughts?

[D.W.]

I literally yelled at my car radio this morning when NPR covered this story.
There was a quote from Mike Hurst, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, where he told companies that they were coming for them if they employed undocumented workers.

But then they said exactly nothing about how this food processing plant was punished...

Should they be shaking in their boots because they might just loose some productivity while they scrounge for more undocumented workers to fill the gaps until the next raid?  These places need to be financially destroyed.  Shut down for months of forensic accountants figuring out how this happened.

You want to solve this crisis?  It's the walls that form these places of business exploiting cheap labor not one at the border we need to worry about.

[Wayward Son]

As someone pointed out, if Trump had all corporate employers who hired illegal aliens arrested, he would be arrested, too.

[ScottF]

Personally if we are going to call illegal immigrants criminals than the same should apply to those who hire them rather than condone the behavior by turning a blind eye to it.

Thoughts?

This 1000%. Massive penalties with potential jail time for corporations who hire illegals seems like a very doable thing. Not simple, but doable. I'm sure liberals would be in favor, I'm wondering what the conservative objection might be?

[D.W.]

They could keep them in the same pens while awaiting trial.

[Seriati]

Just out of curiosity, how do the employer's know?  Should they be obligated to check every individual (regardless of suspicion) against a federal data base? 

We can't even agree to ask about citizenship on the census, how are we going to create that data base?  If the Company has socials for them should they do something to verify?

[D.W.]

https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/information-employers-and-employees

If you are asking if we require employers to be anti fraud experts and detect forgeries / false credentials, then no, I wouldn't agree with that. 

Amusing segue to the citizenship census question. 

[Seriati]

Did you actually follow the link to the Form I-9, not just the description?  https://www.uscis.gov/system/files_force/files/form/i-9-paper-version.pdf

The list of documents that can be used includes thinks like a student ID and a copy of a birth certificate.  Not exactly difficult to forge.  The I-9 is not filed with the government, it's put in the Company's records for inspection if the government chooses to do so.  Do they have to confirm the documents?  Nope, not required, just to certify that they look genuine and like they relate to the person presenting them.

It's a record keeping law that places no obligation on the employer and provides no way to verify that the person is eligible to work.

You'll note too that it prominently states that the employer can't specify which documents can be used or it may be considered illegal discrimination.  This is a form to support illegal workers while claiming it does something.

[D.W.]

If they do their due diligence, then I got no problem with them.  To your point, I think we should have them submitted (probably to the SOS) for verification, and fund them sufficient to do so. 

But as I first stated, there was nothing in the initial report stating one way or the other, if this company had done even that.  The U.S. attorney even threatened other places employing illegally. 

I just find it ridiculous that with few exceptions, this aspect of the immigration issue is ignored.  Remove the incentive and you either, A) significantly reduce illegal crossings, or B) swiftly gain support to reform immigration policy to get us the workers needed to run our economy.  Both things each side claim to want.

[TheDrake]

I think employers should be responsible for demonstrating reasonable diligence. Going too far with that is not only unfair but could really fuel discrimination against Latinos. Oh, I could pay millions in fines for an honest mistake? Not gonna take the risk.

[Seriati]

My point though D.W., is that there is NO federal system against which a person's employment status can be verified by an employer.  Why when we have social security numbers and tax ids is this not something automatic?  I mean heck, we have a federal background check for gun purchases, why not for work status?   Why not one that catches when the wrong name shows up on a social, or when 35 different employers withhold under the same social at the same time?

It's not a trivial process, but it's not that difficult either.  The only reason we don't have it is deliberate choice.  Like I said, this process is designed to support illegal workers not to catch them.

[D.W.]

Just as the process of mass deportation is political and not a law enforcement priority.  They are too useful of pawns for either side to act.  At least that use to be the case.

[TheDrake]

The effects that E-Verify has on the illegal population are astounding. Orrenius and Zavodny found that the number of newly arrived aliens (those most likely to come for employment) fell by nearly 50 percent when a state implemented a mandatory E-Verify law. That is a direct testament to the powerful effect that verification laws have on the ability of illegal aliens to work. The effects were particularly profound in Arizona, where the researchers found an exodus of alien workers following the implementation of mandatory E-Verify in 2008.

[Seriati]

Great reference TheDrake!  The system is out there, but it's voluntary and the mandatory legal obligation, the I-9, is designed to fail.  It's a fascinating window on our political structure.

You'll still note that that e-Verify still leaves the burden on the employer (the employer can compare what they have to what the government has), and still avoids any kind of data crunching responsibility on the governments part (despite that this is now, in the big data era, trivially easy for them to do). 

Why not make e-verify mandatory, and require the government to run fraud checks around verifications that warrant it?  Politics.

[Mynnion]

I have a hard time believing that companies that end up raided and have hundreds of undocumented workers are not aware of the fact.  I believe the system is specifically designed to exploit and provide plausible deniability for the companies.  Of course these workers are great.  They have a strong incentive not to complain about working conditions, low or stolen wages.

[TheDrake]

Seven years later, those laws appear to have been more political bark than bite. None of the Southern states that extended E-Verify to the private sector have canceled a single business license, and only one, Tennessee, has assessed any fines. Most businesses caught violating the laws have gotten a pass.

[TheDeamon]

As someone pointed out, if Trump had all corporate employers who hired illegal aliens arrested, he would be arrested, too.

You would have to prove he knowingly employed illegals. If his company's official policy was "don't do it" then the fall goes to the local manager/HR rep that allowed the hire in the first place.

Besides which, with Trump I don't think there has been more than a few isolated instances of illegals being on the payroll on a per location basis. It isn't like Trump personally approves every hiring decision made throughout his company(This also ignores fraud and identity theft).

Trump has a reasonable defense by claiming it happened in ways outside his "reasonable control" meanwhile, that plant with seven hundred illegals on the payroll? That's obviously a systemic issue that management at several levels within and possibly outside of that facility being aware of it.

[Mynnion]

I have to agree.  While it is possible that Trump was aware or at least encouraged an atmosphere that led to hiring illegal immigrants it seems unlikely that he would normally be involved in the hiring of that level of employee.

[Wayward Son]

Just because Trump wasn't directly involved in hiring doesn't necessarily mean he didn't know, wasn't involved, didn't direct, or wasn't responsible for his underlings decisions.  All sorts of directives can come from above to be implemented by underlings.

None of the presidents of those seven food processing plants worked in human resources.  But do you think they bear absolutely no responsibility for having so many illegal aliens working for them?

[Mynnion]

I stated that Trump could have pushed for hiring illegal immigrants.  I doubt however that there is any proof.

As far as the CEOs in these cases.  It is one thing to believe they were not involved when it is a small percentage of workers and another to believe they had no knowledge when it is 100s.  At the very least HR would know and should be held accountable.  I bet as soon as you start talking about jail time for them you'll start to see those above implicated.